User talk:Supermann/Archives/2021/August

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - can I ask that you moderate the tone you're using towards other editors with regard to this draft? I know that it's frustrating to have a draft declined, but there's no need to insult people's judgment by calling them myopic, or to suggest that there is any anti-Irish sentiment at play when people because folk aren't convinced about the subject's notability. What you need to do is demonstrate the subject's notability, by making it clear that he passes one of the relevant notability criteria: WP:ENT, WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG would seem to be the ones to look at in this case. Note that you aren't obliged to use the AfC process - you could move the draft back into article space yourself if you think it's ready, but if you do that it will probably be nominated for deletion at WP:AfD because of the notability concerns. A discussion will then take place (which you would be welcome to participate in), which will establish a consensus on whether or not we should retain the article.

At the moment, in my view the notability is quite borderline. None of the sources discuss the subject in any depth, and I'm not certain that his contributions to film and television to date would get him over the line on the ENT or CREATIVE criteria. If you can dig up any reliable sources actually discussing him or his performances in any depth, that would probably help your cause.

One more point: links to YouTube can be problematic. The people who upload them are often not the copyright holders of the material, and our WP:COPYRIGHT policy is quite strict compared to that of other user-generated websites: this is discussed specifically at WP:YOUTUBE. I've removed the YouTube link that you put into the draft, because the channel it was linking to was very obviously not the copyright holder; I've also revision deleted all versions of the draft that contained that link. Please don't add links to YouTube videos like that, only ever add them if they are linking to a channel that is clearly the copyright holder of the material shown in the video (for example, it would be OK to link to the BBC's verified channel to link to a news article that you want to use to support an assertion in an article). Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to write the explanation and actually improve the article instead of just shooting it down. That's the comaraderie that I hope to see more from a fellow editor. I highly appreciate it. I think he meets WP: ENT because 1) he had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions per https://www.spotlight.com/6299-0164-7442. I only prioritize adding the list when there is already an internal wikipedia page to help with the context. 2) He has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following because of his role as Sky Marshall Omar Anoke at https://starshiptroopers.fandom.com/wiki/Omar_Anoke. If it wasn't a cult, that Fandom Wiki wouldn't have been created in the first place. I am otherwise aware of Fandom Wiki's status on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. 3) he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I tried to be an actor myself and I know how hard it is to even land a background non-speaking role, union vs non-union. That being said, I am not arguing he is Tom Cruise. But to deny him is just unfair if someone actually screens all Wikipedia articles out there. I would say some are less notable. But I really don't have time to deny them because it's a lose-lose. I would rather see win-win because knowledge is power. Hope you have a good rest of the weekend. Supermann (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

One more note regarding the Youtube Link is to just for readers to visualize it. I would argue it's a form of fair use when it's of low resolution. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of fan wikis is generally to chronicle everything about a franchise. The Harry Potter fandom wiki has an article on match spectators of a single game, so that argument holds little water for the "cult status" argument IMO CiphriusKane (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an observation, not really an argument. I don't like arguing. I just like collaboration. For it to earn that entry, the author must have been a fan at a minimum. I wouldn't have contributed on Harry Potter as I am not a fan, even though I have watched all the films. See Cult. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just a few comments in response to your points. I'll preface it by saying that, as an administrator, my opinion has no greater weight than that of other editor when it comes to decisions about notability, so this isn't me 'laying down the law' or anything; I do have a lot of experience reviewing articles and taking place in deletion discussions though, and I flatter myself that I have a pretty good grasp on the community's thresholds and the kind of articles that are, and are not, likely to survive a deletion discussion.

In response to your numbered points then: 1) To satisfy the criteria, you'll have to establish that more than one of the productions that he's been in are notable (in other words, we have articles about them), and that he had a significant role in them (in other words, he played a major character). 2) Having a Fandom articles is not enough to demonstrate a significant cult following - Fandom sites are often quite comprehensive. Also, his character having a page implies that the film has a cult following, not that he does. That's not going to fly. 3) The wording is quite wooly in that criterion, and people often disagree on what would qualify as unique, prolific or innovative. I personally don't see it, but others might. Don't attempt to use the argument that there are existing articles about less-notable actors however - you are undoubtedly correct, but this is usually characterised as the other stuff exists argument, and it's never effective: there are, unfortunately, lots of improperly sourced articles on this site about non-notable subjects, which have simply flown under the radar. There is a constant trickle of deletion nominations of such articles as people come across them, but lots of them still exist.

On your last point, regarding the YouTube video, I am going to put my admin hat back on because this isn't an editorial judgement: your opinion that a link to that would be OK with a 'fair use' rationale is not compliant with our copyright policy, and inserting a link to it is a violation of that policy. No big deal, I've fixed it, but please don't do anything like that again. I'll also add that we don't use citations merely to allow readers to visualise something: citations to sources should only be used to support an assertion of fact, not to provide a handy link to more information or similar. There's more guidance on this at WP:EL, but the long and short of it is that linking to videos like that on YouTube will ultimately get your account blocked: don't do it! Best Girth Summit _(blether) 10:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding 1) he does have a list of filmography with speaking roles. In particular, he played a major villain in the 2008 movie though the ultimate villain is the alien which brain-washed the Sky Marshall; 2) How does one quantify large fan base here? Twitter followers？Some are fakes considering the number of likes and retweets; 3) Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Denying him shows wikipedia as a tertiary source sucks. If I am rich enough, I will sure launch a competitor site that shows the most inclusiveness and diversity. Supermann (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop trying to make this article happen. It's not getting approved. Period. No one cares about your personal washed up idol Stephan Hogan. Making a failed article about him wont make him notice you.

Stop hiding behind an IP address. What a chicken/coward. And why would I want him to notice me? To create a conflict of interest like some of the accusers out there? Gimme a break! You should be ashamed of yourself. Get the f**** out! Supermann (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, I just noticed that you'd replied to me above. I'm sorry people have been trolling you here: the accounts/IPs have been blocked, let me know if it persists (by the way, you might want to read WP:PING for instructions on how to notify people that you've replied to them).

So, to answer your questions. 1) 'Speaking roles' can still be very minor - having a few lines would not convince people, they'd be looking for major characters. Not necessarily a lead role, but a significant one. I can't quantify that in any way for you I'm afraid, it's a rather subjective judgement call. It sounds like the Sky Marshall role would probably qualify, but more such roles would be needed. 2) Twitter followers would not be enough - we'd want secondary sources talking about his cult status or large fan base. 3) Yes - again, these are fairly subjective criteria. We go by consensus - in an AfD discussion, editors review the sources and indicate whether or not they feel the subject passes the criteria. If the consensus is that he passes, it gets kept; if not, it gets deleted.

I don't think that the ultimate fate of your draft will really determine the question of whether Wikipedia sucks as a tertiary source, but you are touching on one of the long-standing bones of contention within the community. You can read more about the different viewpoints that people take on Meta at Deletionism and Inclusionism. Disagreements about the threshold for inclusion are common, and unfortunately sometimes acrimonious. I don't really have anything to add to that argument, I just do my best to assess articles according to the current guidelines. Other websites, as they say, are available if you don't like the way we do things here. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 11:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Let's table this for now and agree to disagree. He obviously needs to be more famous and I am definitely more of an inclusionist. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been contributing, when I should have rather devoted time to other monetary adventures to make ends meet or just to pay rent. Appreciate your patience with me. Have a good day! Supermann (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I just resubmitted for review after adding many entries. Could you please give me your two cents again while we wait for the next three months? Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Girth Summit:, hope you have been well. Could you please take a new look especially at the stage performance section? Hope you have a great rest of the weekend. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Hogan (July 27)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Eternal Shadow was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Still no indication of passing WP:NACTOR. At this point the submission is being repeatedly resubmitted without improvement.

Eternal Shadow Talk 21:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen Hogan

Firstly I'd like to apologise for my lateness in replying, had to take a mental break from editing. Secondly, this may seem harsh but let the Stephen Hogan draft go. At this point, all you are doing is damaging any chance that the article could be made live. The sourcing that exists at this time for Hogan is just insufficient to establish notability. Every single other Wikipedia article you've used to try and prove Hogan's notability (again, I'd urge you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to see why this is inappropriate. An article's notability is established by itself, not by the state and notability of other unrelated articles) has had at least one full length piece dedicated to them as a person, while Hogan at best had a paragraph in an article about Irish audiobook narrators. Repeatedly bringing up other articles and using their existence as an argument for accepting your draft just makes it seem that you're unwilling to listen and exhausts the patience of people that could help, because it feels pointless trying to help when you keep refusing to understand what we're saying and why we're saying it. Several people have stated that the draft is problematic and fails to establish sufficient notability, but it's like talking to a brick wall.

I thought Hogan's multiple roles could have established notability, but the fact of the matter is that the sources about Hogan's roles are about the productions rather than Hogan himself. He is clearly a prolific actor, but nobody is writing about him or his life. But not even playing a main role in a major Disney film is good enough (1) if there's a lack of sources about the person as a person.

Finally, I'd strongly advise watching how you interact with other editors. You've already been talked to about questioning others' motives. Accusing others of acting in ill faith and trying to link the draft's rejection to instability in the Middle East (2) is grossly inappropriate, as is accusing other editors of totalitarianism. Given all your talk about the Five Pillars, I would expect you to abide by the fourth, civility and respect. If I see you making aspersions about the motives of others or launching personal attacks again, I'll be taking this to ANI CiphriusKane (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your comments. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has been cited on this page already at least once. I am aware of it, but I would also like to point out as its own description suggests that it is not, "one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." I don't recall I was asked to participate in it. It's not a fair treatment to make wikipedia better. Even when I pointed out others have issues, I worked to help improve it, even though the scale might be minimal, for example, Rory Keenan, a fellow Irish actor. I fixed the factual inaccuracy there and corrected a link that established his award in a passing.

All I have been doing is improving the verifiability of his agency's claim saying he was in this production or that production and thus giving out contexts that were asked so that people can see it's at a minimum not some school plays. No agency would bother spending my amount of time to chase down reporting on these productions. I don't know why we can't let his list of filmography to speak to WP:ENT's "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" or "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." But instead count on one single full length that can't possible squeeze all his contributions to a field of entertainment? This is putting the cart before the horse. This particular requirement doesn't make sense. The Cate Bauer you cited has extremely few credits even according to IMDB.https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0061770/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Please look back at common sense if you like to quote "disruptive editing." As I had said before, I wanted to write about him here solely because of his two movie performances. When that is not enough, I waded into theater/stage performances that are simply not my cup of tea. I hardly go to Broadway theatres here in NYC, but I do take advantage of AMC A List for movies. That means I listened. That means I am willing to step out of my comfort zone to learn and improve my sourcing skills. What I am asking is while you ask me to not assume bad faith, I ask you to not assume bad faith towards me either. Stop accusing me of conflict of interest when there is none, by looking at the totality of my edits.

In case you don't already know, that ANI didn't go anywhere. Please feel free to do so one more time, despite all these improvements I have made "subsequently." I am not challenging you personally. I am asking for common sense and challenging this ill obsession with rules. Five Pillars should of course trump the other essays out there. Lately, no one here seems to respect the no "firm rules" in Wikipedia:Five pillars as they treat other new editors. The way you guys rule certainly is not singing Kumbaya. Supermann (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to make clear, I don't think you've got a COI here, just that you're a passionate fan whose edits and editing style are extremely similar to COI/SPA editors. As for linking the essay, I link it because I'm trying to help you avoid repeating a weak argument that doesn't help your case. The article has definitely improved.

As for notability criteria, by my understanding the criteria relies on the presumption that significant secondary sources exist. The main issue here is that the sources being provided are giving notability to the performances more than they are to Hogan. I linked the Bauer AfD because it's an example of a situation where somebody meets the notability criteria but the presumed significant sources to establish said notability never materialised, which is similar to what has possibly happened with Hogan. The thing about notability though is that once established it remains, so if a magazine ever does a piece on Hogan as a person then that can be used to prop up notability claims.

I would advise against trying to weaponise policy as you seem to be intent on doing. This sudden obsession with using the Five Pillars to get your draft published is troubling. Several people have said the sources are insufficient to pass the notability criteria, yet you keep insisting that Hogan passes the criteria. This is what I mean by refusing to listen. You were told time and again that certain sources were inappropriate, yet you insisted on adding them anyway. You were told that the provided sources were insufficient, yet submitted the draft five times in as many days with at best aesthetic changes made, which led to the article being rejected.

Can you provide examples of people assuming bad faith towards you? Because that is something that requires concrete examples, otherwise it's a personal attack. Also saying that the ANI thread went nowhere when Girth Summit left you a message asking you to moderate your tone seems a bit disingenuous. Now please, stop accusing other editors and Wikipedia of being totalitarian, because it's approaching personal attack territory CiphriusKane (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I got pinged here, and looked at the massive wall of text above, and don't have the time or inclination to read it properly. I do see one common theme though - Supermann, you are not understanding what is meant by the 'no fixed rules' thing. What that means is that the rules and guidelines can evolve over time; if we don't like them, we can change them; even in some extraordinary cases, we can ignore them and do something that's outside of the normal rules.

What does that mean in practice? Well, let's say you write an article, and someone comes along and nominates it for deletion because they have reviewed the sources and they don't think it meets the guidelines. What happens next is a discussion, where lots of people can say what they think. If the consensus of the people involved in the discussion was that the article should be kept, one person saying 'but it doesn't meet the letter of the guidelines' won't cut it - the guidelines aren't carved in stone, and community consensus can override them.

That isn't what's happening here. Every person who has reviewed this draft has either said 'not notable', or, as I think I did 'really borderline, you should try to find better sources', or words to that effect. You can't evoke 'no fixed rules' when you're the only person arguing for inclusion.

Now, I'll tell you what you can do, if you want to. You are not required to take the draft through AfC. You have the necessary permissions to move the draft into article space yourself, if you want. What will happen then is that it will go into a different review queue - the 'New Page Patrol' feed. At some point (it might be a few hours, or a few weeks), a New Page Reviewer will evaluate it, and if they don't feel that the subject is notable, they will nominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. Then there will be a discussion, like the one I described above, which will determine a consensus about whether or not the subject is notable. If the consensus is to keep, it will be kept; if it is to delete, it will be deleted. Another might be to redirect the article title to something he's acted in or similar. Once that discussion has taken place, the decision will be binding until such time as something has happened that changes the question on notability - like, an article is written about him in a newspaper, or he lands a big role in a major film or something.

I hope that's clear and helpful. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, you are the best!!!! who actually took the time to edit the article instead of just providing guidance broadly. That's the camaraderie I was talking about. I tried to jump start the publishing process yesterday thinking of your earlier guidance, but failed, because removing any mention of draft in the body doesn't seem enough. It now looks like I could try "move" per Wikipedia:Moving_a_page? Will try my luck next. Definitely need someone with fresh set of eyes. Happy to provide any sourcing support if they have trouble accessing them via Google News and what not. Many thanks again. Supermann (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate the comment on, "the article has definitely improved". That means a lot. You guys took me to a direction that I previously didn't expect and appreciate - stage performances. I don't want to be his PR person and mention all the good, bad, poor performances based on the reporting. I am not good at that. All I have been good at is verifying his performances and see if they have been covered or if there are factual inaccuracies and then come up with the table/list. If a magazine ever does a piece on Hogan as a person, what would you want the writer to write about him? Do you expect the writer to do a background investigation, like his education and what not? I am trying to think what new info would you want to unearth about him to make you feel more about he is "borderline notable." I have definitely removed questionable sources, such as Audible, even though I don't know the basis to it. It's not like it was called out by any essays/guidelines on reliable sources.

When it comes to personal attack, your using words like "weaponize", "obsession" is certainly not helpful. I consider that personal attacks too, because they innately carry the undertones of bad faith. The reason I had to bring up the Five Pillars, especially the no firm rules, because my fulltime job deals with US federal laws. In my understanding, the Five Pillars are like Constitution of the United States. Federal laws written by U.S. Congress can't go against the constitution and remains the laws of the land until re-written or challenged at the courts and by the judges. Once a law is written, the executive branch will write regulations to interpret the congressional intent. Whatever we do here should ultimately hark back to those. Reading the guidelines and essays are definitely a learning process/acquired taste. What I can promise you is I have bookmarked a lot so that I can refer to them from time to time. But I do like common sense more and don't appreciate the condescending tones.

Since you pinged Girth Summit, you can go back to above and see how she helped on the article and below. That sounds more like camaraderie. My ideas went dry after my 30-day free trial on The Times expired. Again, I can't afford the paywalls, but her editing did indirectly remind me I do have Factiva access thru work and library access thru school friends. As I took your feedback and expanded on his stage performances during this editing process, I have grown to appreciate them more. At the teahouse, I printed these reporting/sources back then into a PDF for anyone to verify it. I am not sure if there are anyone that are stupid enough to fake stuff like this.

Free link containing the pdfs:

Manchester Evening News - https://www.dropbox.com/s/g2vqjp6u8yq4lsv/%28FACTIVA%29%20FAST%20FOOD%20Royal%20Exchange%20Studio%20-%20Recipe%20for%20a%20tasty%20night%20out.pdf?dl=0

Sunday Herald - https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lphlqxrye4ji9d/Factiva-08August20212129.pdf?dl=0

Non-free Factiva link (If I am not mistaken, if you try these two links below, you will clearly tell there is no way I am his agency in any shape or form. All I have is just pure passion. But these days I can't even find any indication of passion for Wikipedia out of my roommates who are 15 years younger. They don't even bother to use it. Instead they prefer Baidu Baike. Maybe my passion will soon die out too. Thanks)

Sunday Herald - https://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?p=sa&an=sundhe0020020923dy9m0000c&cat=a&ep=ASE

Manchester Evening News - https://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?p=sa&an=mn00000020010907dv3q00jjy&cat=a&ep=ASE Supermann (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Stephen Hogan in Starship Troopers 3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stephen Hogan in Starship Troopers 3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Your relationship to the subject?

Your editing style gives the impression that you may actually be Steven Hogan (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY), or that you may have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) or a paid relationship (WP:PAID) with him. In any of these cases, you are very strongly advised to disclose the relationship. If WP:PAID, you are required to disclose the relationship to comply with the terms of service of this web site. If you have no relationship with him, then given the impression you have made, it would be a very good idea to explicitly state this lack of a relationship and perhaps explain why you like to work on this article. you user page is a good place for either a disclosure or a statement of non-relationship.

You have on more than one occasion referred to yourself in the plural. Please look at WP:USERNAME. Each username must be used by only one individual. If there is more than one of you, please use separate accounts.

Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC) -Arch dude (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I categorically deny I am Steve Hogan or have a conflict of interest or paid relationship with him, X number of times and once and for all. Not sure what you meant by me using plural. There is only one here in NYC. Please use your vast inventory of tools to detect my lies and call out with proof. I speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I used to be a journalist but left the field due to non gainful experience. But that doesn't mean I don't love verifying. All the verifying I have been tasked so far bring out the best in me. If you call passion a crime, then I am guilty as charged. Supermann (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The "we" that sparked my comment is in the following post by you: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Access_to_the_British_Daily_National_Newspaper_The_Times. I thought you were referring to Supermann there. -Arch dude (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If you refer to the talk page, it's mainly for the benefit of TheBirdsShedTears who somehow just can't see what the rest of the three see. And he didn't clarify whether he was stopped by the paywall or something else. That's why I used "we." I am satisfied with my own access and read the underlying source, even though I recall I didn't add that statement at the very beginning. "So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the material using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); or any other method." Supermann (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Arch dude I believe the "we" there may also include myself, as I'm also a bit puzzled by TBST's assertions that the source in question omits any mention of Hogan (see Talk:Stephen Hogan) CiphriusKane (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Aug. 16, 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bluerules (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The Suicide Squad (film)

Hi. Please remember that talk-pages exist in order to improve the article. It is not a forum to discuss the world at large. This, after all, is Wikipedia, not Reddit. If you feel the need to meander into the tragedies on Kabul Airport to support your views on whether or not a characters rank should be mentioned in an article about some superhero movie, you haven't got a leg to stand on in that discussion. Last but not least, Wikipedia is a multinational effort, disparaging someone over their nationality is simply not done. Kleuske (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)